THE GAMBLE OVER AIRLINE SAFETY

Patricia Goldman likes to illustrate the shortcomings in regulating airline safety with two anecdotes: the one about the cadaver in a garment bag and the regulators who used pickup trucks to test runway friction.

Loose restrictions on carry-on baggage and fears of losing luggage have prompted airline passengers to haul aboard all kinds of things -- including the body that almost made it on one flight.

"I believe it was a Puerto Rican family that was taking grandma back home," said Goldman, vice chairman of the National Transportation Safety Board. Restricting "carry-on luggage is a pet peeve of mine," she said.

So is what she calls the "tombstone technology" federal aviation regulators sometimes use in safety testing -- such as braking pickup trucks on wet runways to measure friction to make sure planes don't slide on takeoffs or landings.

"That's not good, advanced technology," said Goldman, whose agency has urged the Federal Aviation Administration to use more sophisticated techniques. Yet such recommendations often fall victim to political rivalries or get bogged down in the bureaucratic red tape that surrounds regulation of the airline industry, she said.

Goldman's anecdotes, told at a recent conference in Washington on airline safety, illustrate the problems facing federal watchdogs as they scramble to keep tabs on an industry that has boomed since Congress eased restrictions on commercial air travel.

The Airline Regulatory Reform Act of 1978 lifted government controls on airline fares and routes, sparking competition that sent prices plummeting and new air carrier companies proliferating.

Commercial airlines flew 380 million passengers on domestic routes last year, 415 million this year and are predicted to carry nearly twice that number by 1995, according to the FAA.

Deregulation was meant to loosen economic -- not safety -- controls on the nation's airlines. But the resulting competition has raised concerns about whether some companies have overlooked safety under pressures to stay in business. Others say competition weeds out the bad apples.

"I do not mind whether airline industries try to cut their costs," said Rep. Norman Mineta, D-Calif., and chairman of the House Aviation Subcommittee. "But when they start cutting corners on safety issues, then I expect the FAA to come down on them."

In terms of statistics, deregulation has brought increased safety. The number of commercial airline accidents has fallen 29 percent since 1974, according to Edmund Pinto, vice president of the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association. So far this year there have been 15 accidents resulting in four deaths out of about 6 million flights, according to the NTSB.

In addition, air carrier fatalities have declined by 23 percent since 1974. "I still maintain that the most dangerous part of flying is driving to and from the airport," Mineta said.

But the FAA has recently slapped stiff fines on several airlines for safety violations, such as the $9.7 million Eastern Airlines is facing for 78,000 violations. But FAA Administrator Donald Engen acknowledged that such high penalties indicate that "FAA failed to adequately monitor the airline and didn't wake up soon enough."

One problem has been that federal budget cutbacks and the 1981 air traffic controllers' strike drastically depleted the number of FAA inspectors and controllers in the early 1980s. Since then, Engen said, he has rehired 126 inspectors and has gotten approval from U.S. Department of Transportation Secretary Elizabeth Dole to hire 500 more.

In October Congress agreed to boost the number of air traffic controllers to 15,000 by next year, still about 2,000 fewer than before the strike. The agency had 14,803 controllers as of the end of September.

Besides beefing up the FAA, Congress has tussled with political and professional differences between the agency and the National Transportation and Safety Board over safety recommendations. The board is an independent federal agency that investigates accidents and other transportation safety issues. Its recommendations aren't binding, much to the angst of some staff members.

"Frankly, I'm hearing complaints about recommendations not being followed up," Mineta said. "NTSB feels it's not being taken seriously by the FAA."

But Engen said the FAA has accepted about 80 percent of the board's recommendations. Goldman agreed with that figure but said the FAA has taken years to adopt some recommendations. The regulators often don't sense an urgency to act -- until a disaster, she said.

"I hate to say it, but it's going to take an accident to get things done," she said.

Mineta said his committee will take up a number of safety issues when the 100th Congress convenes in January, including stiffer regulations for airplane seat construction, cigarette smoking and carry-on luggage.

That action is prompted by the fact that an automobile seat can withstand nearly three times the force of a crash than the average airplane seat, Mineta said. And although he doubts Congress will ban smoking on planes, he predicts the size of smoking sections will continue to shrink. The average smoking section now is about 30 percent of a plane's seating capacity.

Like Goldman, Mineta also wants tougher restrictions for carry-on luggage. "They're passengers bringing everything on but the kitchen sink," he said. "It has become a safety problem. The weight that's being put in those overhead bins is tremendous."

But some see the increasing attention to safety issues as a backdoor attempt to reregulate airline routes and rates. That would be a mistake, said Gerald Gitner, chief executive officer for Atasco USA, an aircraft supplier for several airlines.

"No matter what happens, the market is going to be a more efficient mechanism than a bureaucracy in regulating the industry," Gitner said. "The bureaucracy tends to protect an industry."

Among the hottest issues expected to surface on Capitol Hill next year will be attempts by industry and airport officials to pry loose an estimated $4 billion to $5 billion surplus in the federal Aviation Trust Fund.

Created in 1970, the fund consists of revenue from taxes on tickets and fuel that are used for airport construction and air traffic control operations. But the government has let most of the money sit idle as an unspent asset

that helps cloak the federal deficit.

Meanwhile, local governments and airport authorities are unable to expand their airports or build new ones to relieve congestion and divert smaller planes from busy commercial airports. Recent crashes involving commercial jets and small, private aircraft in Tampa and Cerritos, Calif., have underscored concerns about safety.

Compounding the funding problem is increasing political pressure from developers who are eyeing undeveloped airport property.

"There's a lot of pressure to take that prime land and build shopping centers and office parks," said Pinto of the aircraft owners association. "We view this as a major threat to dismantle airports."

The politics have some industry representatives proposing that Congress remove the FAA from under the transportation department's wing and create an independent National Aviation Authority.

Under a proposal by the Air Transport Association of America, which represents the nation's major airlines, the new agency would oversee air traffic control operations and airport construction funding. The FAA would be reorganized under the authority to handle only regulatory and safety issues.

The idea is that an agency independent of the transportation department would be a stronger voice for aviation issues, both economic and safety. The proposal has gotten support from some members of Congress, although no one has offered to sponsor a bill. But industry representatives are hopeful.

"There's too much pressure brought to bear on the FAA -- too many political things," said William Bolger, president of the transport association. "It's got to have the independence to do its job."